So you have identified a difference. Being infertile is a naff red herring brought in when people can't face admitting the facts. The point is about potential. When two people try to have children generally speaking they have no idea whether they will get lucky and clinch the deal. However, a straight couple has the potential to get lucky. A gay couple does not. Their equipment is not complementary; they will simply never be able to have children with each other. That is a difference; it is THE difference.

Prince Charles & Camilla had kids while married to other people, but are too old to have kids married to each other. It didn't stop them being married and it won't stop him being head of the Church of England when he becomes King either, so the procreation angle is as much of a red herring as the religious angle on this matter

Prince Charles & Camilla had kids while married to other people, but are too old to have kids married to each other. It didn't stop them being married and it won't stop him being head of the Church of England when he becomes King either, so the procreation angle is as much of a red herring as the religious angle on this matter

No it isn't. As I said, marriage in this country was formalised by the Christian Church, in the Middle Ages, when it was the only institution that promoted it and enabled it to take place. Therefore the Christian Church is very relevant when marriage is discussed, since effectively the Christian Church invented marriage as it is applied in this country (in other countries it is applied differently, as it was prior to the Christian Church formalising it). You may think it is a red herring but that does not make it so.

Charles and Camilla both had children, by spouses of the opposite sex so I don't see what your point is or how it is relevant to the discussion.

No it isn't. As I said, marriage in this country was formalised by the Christian Church, in the Middle Ages, when it was the only institution that promoted it and enabled it to take place. Therefore the Christian Church is very relevant when marriage is discussed, since effectively the Christian Church invented marriage as it is applied in this country (in other countries it is applied differently, as it was prior to the Christian Church formalising it). You may think it is a red herring but that does not make it so.

Charles and Camilla both had children, by spouses of the opposite sex so I don't see what your point is or how it is relevant to the discussion.

So, the Christian church invented marriage now?

Your historical argument holds no weight whatsoever. There will have been marriage on these shores before Christianity ever featured and monogamous too, the Romans only permitted one partner.

We only live in a Christian country in only the loosest sense. They certainly don't hold any sway over how the citizens of this country choose to define marriage.

No it isn't. As I said, marriage in this country was formalised by the Christian Church, in the Middle Ages, when it was the only institution that promoted it and enabled it to take place. Therefore the Christian Church is very relevant when marriage is discussed, since effectively the Christian Church invented marriage as it is applied in this country (in other countries it is applied differently, as it was prior to the Christian Church formalising it). You may think it is a red herring but that does not make it so.

Charles and Camilla both had children, by spouses of the opposite sex so I don't see what your point is or how it is relevant to the discussion.

We call a secular union of two people of different gender "marriage" and the majority of people in this country would not identify themselves as Christian so the relevance of a questionable historical claim is tenuous at best,

Your claim is that marriage should include the potential of procreation, by that count Charles and Camilla as an example could not be married as they could not have children together. The other side of your argument is of course that there are many examples of partners in a marriage with children who then leave because they realise they are gay or lesbian, presumably you'd accept they could be married because they

It implies that it is different, it does not imply that it is lesser. There is no logic for suggesting that it is lesser and not, for example, greater unless the name was something pejorative. Civil partnership is not offensive in any way.

And again nobody is forcing people tom call it anything, civil partnership is the name the state uses, you can call it what you like.

edit: and I don't see who is making what argument has any relevance. An argument is only as good as its logic and this doesn't depend on the person making the argument.

By ensuring it has to be different of course it makes it lesser otherwise why make it different?

Of course the argument is as good as its logic and there has been a complete absence of logic from the opponents. Their viewpoint comes from an inherent homophobia within the religious opinion. That is why they have made it into a huge issue without coming close to explaining why it is such a problem. Even you yourself have admitted that it doesn't really make any difference what it is called.

If this is so obviously the case, why is there such a vehement opposition backed behind the weakest of arguments? Because in reality, they dislike homosexuals and homosexuality and see this as a further acceptance of homosexuality in our society. It is this that is the real reason for their anger.

So you have identified a difference. Being infertile is a naff red herring brought in when people can't face admitting the facts. The point is about potential. When two people try to have children generally speaking they have no idea whether they will get lucky and clinch the deal. However, a straight couple has the potential to get lucky. A gay couple does not. Their equipment is not complementary; they will simply never be able to have children with each other. That is a difference; it is THE difference.

Using phrases like, 'their equipment is not complimentary' does little for the idea that many of the opponents are borderline homophobic.

The whole debate is ridiculous. The opponents suggest that they are willing to accept civil partnerships and even go as far to say that it is virtually the same thing. Therefore, why are they so bothered about a change in title? Why does a change in title mean the end of the world? Even if marriage is all about children (which I highly dispute) why is it such a major problem that gays will be allowed to use the title? Surely, it should be nothing more than a mild annoyance. After all, it will not affect whether heterosexual couples can have children within marriage.

No it isn't. It isn't implying that it is different, it is stating quite clearly that it is, which it is. A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two people of the same gender and is therefore different from a heterosexual relationship which is a relationship between two people of different genders. The statement isn't implying that a homosexual relationship is lesser either. It is making no comment on its value at all. Certain people are inferring that it is but that says more about those who are inferring rather than any implication.

The terms homosexual and heterosexual are more than enough description for people to understand the difference. People would know what a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage are, you do not need to change the word marriage also.

Otherwise, why not come up with a new term for a Muslim marriage, atheist marriage or a Jewish marriage. Why do we allow them to use the term marriage? It is different from an Anglican marriage after all.

Using phrases like, 'their equipment is not complimentary' does little for the idea that many of the opponents are borderline homophobic.

The whole debate is ridiculous. The opponents suggest that they are willing to accept civil partnerships and even go as far to say that it is virtually the same thing. Therefore, why are they so bothered about a change in title?

Seems to me that it's gay people who are bothered. They are the ones demanding the change. If it was JUST a title then why are gay people so het up about it?

Seems to me that it's gay people who are bothered. They are the ones demanding the change. If it was JUST a title then why are gay people so het up about it?

Then you are wrong. Plenty of straight people are in favour of the change as well, me for one. Not least because I don't want to be associated with the sort of narrow minded homophobic bigots like Lord Carey who use crude and ignorant language to try and justify their homophobia and bigotry.

By ensuring it has to be different of course it makes it lesser otherwise why make it different?

Why do you want to eradicate difference?

I am a woman. I do not want to be a man. What I do want is for both genders to be treated with equal respect and equal rights in law. But other than that I want to remain happily female - whatever that means to me (I hate pink, for example, to cite a stereotype). There are certain things I am not able to do as a female that a male can do, like urinate up a wall. Men can't do certain things I can do, like get pregnant. We have different equipment and our bodies are built structurally different making it relatively easier, on the whole, for men to lift heavy stuff when compared to women. These are differences. That they exist does not make one lesser than the other, just different, and the difference should be celebrated, not eradicated.

Then you are wrong. Plenty of straight people are in favour of the change as well, me for one. Not least because I don't want to be associated with the sort of narrow minded homophobic bigots like Lord Carey who use crude and ignorant language to try and justify their homophobia and bigotry.

Whereas I believe in a country in which people should be able to express their views freely and without fear and with due respect afforded them. The reference to a 'three person marriage' is spot on, for example, because - as I said earlier - gay people cannot biologically have children and therefore a third person is always going to be involved. Not sometimes, as in the case of when straight people are unable to conceive; but always because gay people cannot conceive with each other. So that is actually an accurate observation on the case and a relevant one because bringing a third person into the relationship could cause difficulties and certainly undermines the meaning of marriage as it is applied in this country: which is a union between a man and a woman. That is the meaning of it but obviously the meaning can be changed. If marriage is legally applied to gay couples then the meaning of marriage has changed.

By ensuring it has to be different of course it makes it lesser otherwise why make it different?

Because it is different. Man and woman have different names because the genders are different. Which gender is "implied" to be lesser?

Of course the argument is as good as its logic and there has been a complete absence of logic from the opponents. Their viewpoint comes from an inherent homophobia within the religious opinion. That is why they have made it into a huge issue without coming close to explaining why it is such a problem. Even you yourself have admitted that it doesn't really make any difference what it is called.

No, I said that it doesn't make any difference to me, it makes a great deal of difference to some.

If this is so obviously the case, why is there such a vehement opposition backed behind the weakest of arguments? Because in reality, they dislike homosexuals and homosexuality and see this as a further acceptance of homosexuality in our society. It is this that is the real reason for their anger.

That's mind reading on your part.

Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a sin but it also says that "love the sinner, hate the sin". I can't see any hatred of homosexuals in the stance of most opponents. Nobody is arguing that homosexuals should be stoned to death and few are arguing that civil partnerships are wrong.

Think about the whole wedding ritual, there are certain roles for the groom and his relatives / friends and for the bride and her family / relatives. Now if there were two brides or two grooms then the roles of all concerned would be striking different.

And I'm aware that somebody will now ask me whether a hetero marriage that didn't have these elements would still be a wedding - it would legally - but it would been seen as "different".

I am a woman. I do not want to be a man. What I do want is for both genders to be treated with equal respect and equal rights in law. But other than that I want to remain happily female - whatever that means to me (I hate pink, for example, to cite a stereotype). There are certain things I am not able to do as a female that a male can do, like urinate up a wall. Men can't do certain things I can do, like get pregnant. We have different equipment and our bodies are built structurally different making it relatively easier, on the whole, for men to lift heavy stuff when compared to women. These are differences. That they exist does not make one lesser than the other, just different, and the difference should be celebrated, not eradicated.

I don't understand the need to eradicate difference.

I don't want to eradicate difference I want to eradicate inequality.Your arguments are becoming comically weaker. You can't pee up a wall so gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. Yep, you've convinced me.

You have ignored my earlier post where I revisited the case of Charles and Camilla. Your claim is that marriage should include the potential of procreation, by that count Charles and Camilla as an example could not be married as they could not have children together. The other side of your argument is of course that there are many examples of partners in a marriage with children who then leave because they realise they are gay or lesbian, presumably you'd accept they could be married because they both had children, by spouses of the opposite sex.

Otherwise, why not come up with a new term for a Muslim marriage, atheist marriage or a Jewish marriage. Why do we allow them to use the term marriage? It is different from an Anglican marriage after all.

Muslims and Jews will have their own word for marriage (which originates in Latin and came to us via French) and their own versions of marriage. Marriage is different the world over. But in this country, whether you like it or not, it is historically correct to say that marriage as applied today was formalised by the Christian church as was so much of our culture, traditions, law, etc, etc. At the time it was formalised, the church in England was Roman Catholic (the Middle Ages). The Anglican wedding ceremony came later, in 1662. You are confusing a wedding ceremony with marriage. The Anglican understanding of marriage is the same as the Catholic understanding as they are both branches of the Christian church. There have been differences in certain aspects, such as the use of contraception and annulment/divorce but in all the fundamentals the whole Christian church agrees. The state adopting marriage came later - I would have to check the date - and today focuses almost solely upon the legalities, an element which was already encapsulated in the Christian church understanding of marriage and is reflected in its ceremony (and latterly, post Henry VIII, in the fact that an Anglican vicar is also a registrar of marriages).

Think about the whole wedding ritual, there are certain roles for the groom and his relatives / friends and for the bride and her family / relatives. Now if there were two brides or two grooms then the roles of all concerned would be striking different.

I don't think so. I had a female best "man" when I got married and just for balance's sake my younger brother was chief bridesmaid. I've been to weddings where the "groom's speech" was made by the bride and where the bride was given away by her sister, where the bride's father's speech was made by a non-related guest and where the parents of both parties were not present. All marriages, most still going strong.

But that is not what you are seeking. People can be different and equal, hence my reference to gender differences. Male and female are equal, but different. Equality does not mean identical. Civil partnerships serve gay couples well. They provide all the legal rights and obligations afforded to straight couples. There is no need to change anything because both are now equal. They are not identical and never will be identical and what some gay people and the straight champions of this particular cause are unable or unwilling to accept is that they never will be identical. They are different, will always will be different and that is just how it is. However, that is not to say the gay couple in a civil partnership - which they may or may not choose to call marriage - is less equal than the couple in a straight marriage. They are not. They have all the same legal rights and obligations. So how are they unequal?

I don't think so. I had a female best "man" when I got married and just for balance's sake my younger brother was chief bridesmaid. I've been to weddings where the "groom's speech" was made by the bride and where the bride was given away by her sister, where the bride's father's speech was made by a non-related guest and where the parents of both parties were not present. All marriages, most still going strong.

This is all about ceremony though, and ceremony is only the initiation into marriage. Ceremonies can encompass all sorts of things.